A bad move for religion’s sake

Our opinion: The state Legislature considers a law that would require schools to allow organized worship. In the name of religion, religious freedom is on the line.

Our nation’s founders knew that religion was not just another pastime, but something special. So special, in fact, that they devoted the first words of the First Amendment of the Constitution to protecting it — and guarding against its misuse.

Here’s what they wrote: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Both sides of that issue are in play in the state Legislature, where the Senate this week overwhelmingly passed a bill to prohibit school districts from barring groups from using schools for worship after hours.

The bill comes in response to New York City’s decision, following its victory in a lengthy court battle, to no longer allow churches to use public schools after Feb. 12. Some 160 religious groups used the schools last year for worship services.

However well-intentioned this legislation may be, it is wrong. It would violate the principle of separation of church and state. Rather than promote freedom of religion, it would harm it. And it would open schools up to almost any group, religious or otherwise, threatening the control that educators and parents have over the messages that are communicated in public schools.

This bill would allow religious groups to convert schools into their personal houses of worship for their particular religion, if only on a part-time basis. That in itself is an inappropriate use of public, taxpayer-funded buildings.

Moreover, the bill does not require that the schools be empty of students while services are going on, only that this access be outside regular hours. The presence of religious worship in a public building while students of any number of other faiths, or no faith at all, are also there for extra-curricular activities communicates at least a sense of an official endorsement of religion.

To many, we suspect, it would send a signal that this religion or this particular sect has a special status in the eyes of the district.

What happens when all the available times are claimed — and one church or another effectively has permanent, exclusive use of a school? What happens when a school superintendent decides to draw the line at a group that strikes him as more of a cult than a bona fide religion?

What happens when public outrage erupts over some perceived affront by a religious group, as we witnessed in the controversy over a proposed mosque and Islamic community center in Manhattan two years ago?

Further, this bill is not just about religion. It would bar “the exclusion or limitation of speech, during non-school hours, even where students may be present.”

We’ll leave it to the reader to consider what speech they would not want drifting down the halls during, oh, rehearsals for a school play.

We appreciate that some congregations may be too poor to afford their own house of worship. The answer, though, is not for government to offer a taxpayer-funded hand in the establishment of their religion. There are surely private solutions they can resort to, such as using private homes or other non-public space, pooling resources with other small congregations, or making arrangements with larger houses of worship.

The fate of this bill now hinges on the Assembly, where Speaker Sheldon Silver has expressed early reservations about it. That’s encouraging. It would be all too easy to get swept up in a cause wrapped in the guise of religious freedom, only to realize after the fact that those founders knew better after all.

11 Responses

The much claimed separation of church is silly. Church property receives police and fire protection without paying property taxes. I would have the school open to groups an hour after classes end. My theory is that this would encourage some to do their homework while they are waiting for their activity to begin.

By the same extension of this stupid decision, any other groups using the facility, whether religion-based or not, are receiving a passive endorsement from the school district. “I don’t want an AA group meeting at ABC Elementary School, because little Johnny might hear something that might damage him. Oh, and the meeting takes place during his Cub Scout meeting several rooms away.”
Any college classes that may be meeting at schools may have a controversial discussion about anything. It could also damage little Johnny, who is there for play rehearsal. Any GED classes may encourage him to drop out of school.
I mean, we could spin this any way we want. Some groups might meet under the guise of one group, but could be terrorists plotting the next destruction.

The simple solution is to simply charge a rental fee for ANY group not directly a part of a school – that would pay the bills that ANY group would use. Tax payers should not pick up the tab for any group or organization that is not directly a part of the school i.e. not part of the schools tax payer approved budget.

There are schools in every state that allow churches and houses of worship into public schools, after hours. Schools all over rent out space and it is not a wide spread issue. Using good judgment here is key. You don’t allow outside groups to monopolize the school’s space. Besides, fees from renting space can help boost school budgets. The bill can be broad but each school district can set its own policy, again, using good judgment.

I agree with the TU that this is a bad bill, but for different reasons. The bill is a one size fits all knee-jerk reaction approach, which means it’s destined to have unintended consequences. Also, local school districts should have some leeway in establishing how empty spaces are utilized after hours and what activities should not be allowed within the school.

That said, I do not think a religious group should be excluded from using a public building during non-business hours if almost any other group or club is allowed access. As long as there is no special treatment and the religious group abides by the same rules as everyone else, then there is no government endorsement argument to be made.

The TU has good points regarding what to do if a certain religious group seems to be monopolizing all of the free time and space or if there are offensive discussions or activities. Fair enough, but those issues could also arise with secular groups and clubs using vacant areas.

IF the original intent of the Founders was to keep religion out of our schools, why then in the early history of our nation did Congress give money to make sure schools had the New England Primer in them. The book taught the alphabet and early language using Bible verses. It also taught acceptable moral character as well. The Supreme Court ruling that brought about this over used and miss used phrase from Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Conn. Baptist, I refer to “separation of church and state”, did not appear until the 1960′s. This happened because those who are not familiar with the writings of the Founders were miss guided in their judgement. They also lost site of what their job was. That being to use the Constitution as a plumb line in their decision and not interpret it as they saw fit. That said. the school’s not allowing religious groups to pay for and use the taxpayer funded building during non school hours while allowing other groups to use them is simple discrimination. The US Capital itself was used for church services for years when to government was in session as there were too many people in the town to get into all the churches so they used what they had at the time. A governmental building. No separation of church and state there at that time. Has our Constitution changed or do we now want to interpret in ways that suit our political interest? Just some facts for all to ponder….Peter

A very bad bill. Surely the Senate has much more important things to do. Then why aren’t they doing them? Opens up a pandor’a box of serious problems, several mentioned by others. Add problems that haven’t even been thought of yet.
SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, has to be exactly that, with emphasis on the word SEPERATION.